Full Pundit: The most complicated baby in the world

Full Pundit: The most complicated baby in the world

WEEKEND ROUNDUP

Put the pen down, and back slowly away from the Constitution“Any claim that Canada and Britain share a Crown in the legal or constitutional sense is … incompatible with the complete sovereignty that Canada achieved in 1982,” Philippe Lagassé writes for Maclean’s — and thus, he argues, the government’s contention that it needn’t alter the rules of succession for the Canadian Crown via constitutional amendment, but merely agree to the ones they come up with in Blighty, is at best deeply “problematic.” “The most obvious consequence of the government’s position is that Canadian republicans will have been proved right,” says Lagassé: “The Crown is an inherently British entity and Canada cannot claim to be an independent state until our ties to the House of Windsor are cut or we become a republic.” Which needless to say is not what the Conservatives have in mind.

The Sun Media editorialists are untroubled by such wonkery, perhaps because, they say, “Wills and Kate have us mesmerized.” They wish the new rules of succession speedy passage through Parliament, and squeeee, they hope it’s a girl! The MontrealGazette‘s editorialists suggest splitting the difference: “Consult the provinces, if only as a courtesy, and let them formally add their approval, thereby making it an even more ringing endorsement.” (Ah yes, the little-known “ringing endorsement” clause of the Constitution. It’s in there for a reason, people!)

“Since Harper campaigned for his job seven years ago on a promise to elect senators, and since he has had his majority for nearly two years but is only now asking the top court questions that must surely have preoccupied Justice Department lawyers since at least 2006, his decision indicates he is still improvising on a non-trivial constitutional file,” Paul Wells of Maclean’s writes. If the Supreme Court answers his questions, and especially if it does so to Harper’s satisfaction, he may actually have to start taking Senate reform seriously. Gulp.

‘Round OttawaPostmedia’s Michael Den Tandt was deeply unimpressed with Sunday’s Liberal leadership Q&A session: “The ‘questions’ … were rhetorical red carpets (‘Should the federal government have a role in supporting cities?’), seemingly laid out to prompt the candidates to repeat one tried-and-true Liberal mantra after another, in slightly different ways, perhaps subtly suggestive of individuality, for more than two hours,” he writes. “Last I checked, these mantras were no longer having their intended effect. What of elections 2006, 2008, and 2011?” And what’s worse, he notes, nobody seems to be willing to take on Trudeau with the “gloves off”; it seems they all want cabinet posts in his government, but he might well be less likely to have one thanks to their timidity.

John Geddes of Maclean’s, meanwhile, takes note of a few issues that were not discussed at said event: “how to shrink the deficit while still maintaining, even expanding, priority programs”; Canada’s military role, if any, going forward in Africa and other theatres of the war on terrorism; the impending demographic crunch; and First Nations issues such as widespread poverty. Some pretty high national priorities, in other words. Considering the great quantities of piffle emanating from the stage, Geddes thinks they might easily have found room.

“Nobody expects an internecine gathering to band together to roast the leader,” says the Toronto Star‘s Tim Harper — Hey, he hasn’t won yet! —“but Trudeau has endured two of these encounters without even having to prove he can think on his feet.” Luckily for them, he says, these debates “only [matter] to Liberals.” No one else is watching.

Postmedia’s Stephen Maher makes a good and correct case for the health of key politicians like Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, or would-be Prime Minister Jack Layton, being every Canadian’s business — and thus the media’s business. The treatment for Flaherty’s skin condition is clearly “affecting his job,” in Maher’s view; and thus forcing its revelation was entirely appropriate. That said, he thinks there “is every reason to believe [Flaherty] can hack it until he’s good and ready to pack it in.” The Ottawa Citizen‘s editorialists agree.

Stéphane Dion, writing in TheGlobe and Mail, effectively defends the Clarity Act against the NDP insurgency.

The National Post‘s Jonathan Kaynotes that when supporters of Canada’s abortion law vacuum point to medical standards that they say make late-term abortions practically impossible, they effectively concede “that fetuses really do gain moral rights once they reach a certain stage of development.” The question then becomes: Why should a bunch of unelected men and women with stethoscopes around their necks decide where to draw the line, as opposed to Parliament, like everywhere else in the world?

Amidst all the talk of the federal government divesting itself from African concerns, the Globe‘s Doug Saunders reminds us that “Canada is now the largest foreign mining operator in the continent, exceeding even China.” Canadian companies, and aid workers doing the government’s work, are “tearing up the land, building new towns, creating roads and pipelines and airports, and bringing in new forms of government and administration to create new economies and enforce human rights and democratic standards,” Saunders writes. He says it all “bears a striking resemblance to the things Britain and France were doing in Canada two centuries ago.”

The Star‘s Heather Mallick suggests support for gun control is now higher in the United States than in Canada, and … good lord, what are we doing? It’s garbage. Don’t read it.

Trouble in the regionsConrad Black, writing in the Post, vents a considerable quantity of spleen towards the political leadership currently inhabiting Liberal Queen’s Park and the Parti Québécois’ National Assembly. The Toronto Sun‘s editorialists, and Rex Murphywriting in the Post, demand the Ontario government remove its grubby fingers from citizens’ pockets and find some way to solve gridlock that doesn’t involve massive quantities of money. Murphy is particularly incensed at the notion of road tolls.

The Post‘s Graeme Hamilton notes that Quebec’s political donation rules has become such a farce that some reasonably learned people seem to have forgotten what they’re even supposed to be. “The biggest Quebec companies donate, and that’s normal. We want these companies to be involved at the democratic level, and that’s what keeps democracy rolling,” Union Montréal’s lawyer told the Charbonneau Commission last week, which is pretty awesome. “Excuse me,” the Commissioner interrupted. “We don’t want those companies to donate. It’s prohibited in Quebec.” Oopsie!

The Vancouver Sun‘s Ian Mulgrew updates us on the massive ongoing clusterfuddle surrounding British Columbia’s new administrative sanctions for drivers who breathalyze over .05. One lawyer contends that many wrongful “convictions” may end up costing taxpayers a whole heap of money. More to the point, as Mulgrew says, we must consider “whether any[one] lost a job or maybe their marriage because they were branded an ‘impaired driver.’ ”

The Edmonton Journal‘s Graham Thomsonnotes that Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives are relying on some very narrow legalistic arguments to support their own dubious virtuousness — first on Alison Redford’s Tobaccogate spot of bother, and now on the matter of some improper political donations that the party wants to keep. At this point, says Thomson, “rebuilding the public trust in the PCs … is an infrastructure project to rival the pyramids.”